The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-08-07
HE TRACES TIE BLUNDER OF
THE STATE. CONSrIrUrI0N,
And Suggests the Contrivance for
Submitting the SINE, dment
May be Migratory.
THE STATESMEN 1870 REPEAT
THE ERaOR OF The FATHERS.
A Convention Must be Called 10 Sc
cpre Prohibition, In the Opln-
ION Of the Judge.
To tho Editor Of the Appeal:

aItef apprOVeu mOucls, Changing tue
design according to their intelligence
Or fancy, not always for the best, but
generally with some specific purpose
OF supposed improvement. In the
workshop Of the statesmen, pre-
sumlbly, the models are all at hand
for comparison when they are en-
gagged in framinga constitution; and
the general similarity of their work
and the constantly appearing identi-
by OF detail in the construction and
phraseology, proves that this is a
fact.
1t occurred to me, therefore, to
examine by comparison and contrast,
all the models, to see il the disputed
words Of our tennessee constitution
in relation to the submission Of
amendments to vote OF the people
might not be traced to their original
source, and some light thrown upon
the inquiry now so intensely inter-
sstiug to our people. The work has
been entertaining and instructive,
upon the general subject, and it has
seemed to me that | might, with
propriety, submit to your interested
readers summary OF the results, so
far as they relate to the disputed
words describing the electoral body
by which an amendment may be rati-
fed. The subject is much larger in
importance than any proposed
amendment. Jan be. for obvious rea-
sons, aud the only relation Of the
pending amendment to the inquiry
is that it directs public attention to
the matter; exacting and sensitive,
il not irritating, attention, IL hap.
pens 10 be, from the nature OF the
proposed amendment, in its import
ance to individuals and partisans OF
either side to that issue; but still,
the relation is none the less facti-
tious and unimportant. Bat for the
necessity 10 which the submission OF
that amendment gives rise aud the
intensity of feeling provoked, the
imperiection OF our Constitution in
regard 10 the provision made for
amending il would scarcely attract
any interest whatever, as it has not
for fiity-three years since the con-
trivance was FIRST put together so
bunglingly by our ancestors. Ii is a
matter Of public concern, always
alive when interest in it is alive, aud
it is fortunate that something has
arisen TO challenge a consideration
that shall set TO work an intelligent
aud interested discussion Of it. No
thing eau be more unsatisfactory
than mere argumentative differences,
fabricated to suit a preconcoived
theory that has been adjusted to the
oxigencics OF some particular situa-
ton, by those who are anxious 10 ac-
eomplish their desire TO sustain or
defeat a given amendment. There
fore, before an election has created a
state OF affairs TO which theories
must be fitted, seems the very best
time 20 ruminatc upon the question
involved. because, then, there may
BE- some degree, at least, OF impair.
TALLY oil Judgment about a mere alb
stractiOn.
One hundred and seventy.two
charters, constitutions, ordinances
amendments and schedules have been
examined, and ninety-one noted fol-
comparison. IL is necessary 10 ex'
plain that whether the process oil
amending the Constitution is TO be
accomplished by calling conven'
hon or submitting an amendment di.
rectly 90 the people for ratification
becomes iInmaterial, IL there be 4
vote a the people upon the question
Of calling convention, so far a. re,
latcs % the present work and so
SEIZED llcs aud ordinances submi 'linl
new constitutions 90 vote Of Oh,
people become important, since they
must necessarily create aud do6u,
an electoral body 10 perform III,
electoral act
Prior 10 the Revolution the oull
charters or fundamental laws which
provided for their own amendment
were those OF Pennsylvania Of l6S2
1853, 1896 aud 1901, it being one o
the privileges conferred by William
Penn upon the ireemcn oi iha
province that those charters shoul,
not be changed without the oobseu
Of the governor anl six parts o
seven OF said ireemen 10 provincial
council and assembly met" Fror
this germ the comparison that ha
been made shows a development i
this matter OF over two centuries.
was limitation upon his own powe
or that OF the king, and so was calle
privilege but since the people O
State possesses the absolute powe
Of altering the constitution at wi
these regulations for its amendment
are likewise limitations on thei
power. but only in the sense that
any prescribed regulation should be
come imperative, the absolute pove
would still exist and they could &C
10 the ordinary mode Of convontio
called together by law, upon who
reserved power nearly all the oldei
constitutions relied, by making 0
mention whatever OF amendments.
During the revolutionary perio,
which for convenience may be ca
tended 10 include the year 100 an
the completion Of the Federal COZ
stitution, the only provisions mao
for amendment we're in the constitl
tious OF Pennsylvania, l7TG, for
Council OF Ceusors' 10 call col
vontion 10 act upon previously pr
mulgatcd amendments by instruct,
delegates TO the convention;
Maryland. 1776, BY a legislative a
10 be confirmed by the next genor
assembly after an election Of ne
delegates; in Vermont, III, Ia
and 1873, same a. PenpsylVani
IN South Carolina, l77s, /
mere legislative act aft
ninety days notice, aud 1890,
legislative act, agreed 70 BY a new
elected Lesislaturei In Massaoh